With the recent legalization of recreational marijuana in Minnesota, the legal landscape for drivers has fundamentally changed. While this shift is a welcome development for many, it has also introduced significant complexities and potential pitfalls, especially concerning Driving While Impaired (DWI) laws. As a criminal defense attorney with over 30 years of experience in DWI law, I see a growing number of cases where the lines are blurred, and the science law enforcement relies on is questionable at best.
A critical issue that exposes the state’s lack of preparedness is highlighted in a recent Star Tribune article about the massive backlog in testing cannabis products. While this report focuses on the bottleneck for the recreational market, it has profound implications for the criminal justice system. If the state’s laboratories are overwhelmed and struggling to accurately test the potency and purity of cannabis products sitting on a shelf, how can we trust their ability to handle the far more nuanced and time-sensitive task of testing a driver for active impairment? This isn’t just a logistical hiccup; it’s a systemic failure that can be leveraged in a strong DWI defense.
Unlike alcohol, where a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 provides a clear, albeit sometimes debatable, legal line, there is no such consensus for THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis. THC can remain detectable in a person’s system for days, weeks, or even longer after consumption, long after any impairing effects have subsided. This means a positive blood or urine test for THC does not prove a driver was impaired at the time they were pulled over. The state must prove actual impairment, a much higher and more difficult standard. The current testing backlog underscores the state’s struggle with the basic science of cannabis, which directly undermines the prosecution’s ability to prove its case in court.
This is where the principles of a rigorous criminal defense become paramount. Every DWI case, whether it involves alcohol or cannabis, must be built on a foundation of solid evidence and proper police procedure. A strong defense doesn’t just accept the charges; it challenges every aspect of the state’s case. This core tenet of criminal law is visible even in cases outside of the DWI realm. For instance, another Star Tribune story detailed how a former state senator is fighting a federal case by challenging the tactics used in a police sting operation. His legal team is filing motions and demanding to know the specifics of the investigation, refusing to let the government’s narrative go unexamined.
That same aggressive, detail-oriented approach is essential in defending a DWI. We must ask the critical questions: Did the officer have a legitimate reason to pull you over in the first place? Were the field sobriety tests administered correctly according to national standards? Was the testing equipment properly calibrated and maintained? In a cannabis DWI case, the questions multiply. What specific observations led the officer to suspect drug impairment? Was a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) called to the scene, and what are that officer’s qualifications and biases? Given the testing backlogs, what was the chain of custody for any blood or urine sample, and how long did it take to get a result?
The legalization of marijuana was a significant step, but the state’s legal and scientific infrastructure has not kept pace. This gap creates an environment where drivers can be wrongfully accused and convicted based on flawed science and procedural errors. The challenges facing the state’s testing labs are not just an industry problem—they are a powerful tool for the defense. It demonstrates that the system is not prepared, and that reasonable doubt may be much more than just a possibility. If you are facing a DWI charge in this new legal environment, it is more important than ever to have an advocate who understands the science, scrutinizes the evidence, and knows how to challenge the state’s case at every turn.
Sources:
The information presented in this article is not considered legal advice. Please contact our law office to speak to an attorney about your case.